A recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Mizelle in Tampa, Florida, has stirred significant legal debate by declaring key provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA) unconstitutional. The FCA, a powerful tool for combating fraud against the U.S. government, enables private individuals, known as relators, to file lawsuits on behalf of the government against entities accused of defrauding federal programs. In 2023 alone, the U.S. government recovered over $2.3 billion through FCA lawsuits initiated by private whistleblowers. However, Mizelle’s decision casts doubt on the constitutionality of the statute’s qui tam provisions, which empower these whistleblowers to act as private enforcers of federal law without being appointed as officers of the United States.

The ruling came in the case of Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, where Clarissa Zafirov, a former physician, alleged that her former employer defrauded Medicare by misrepresenting patients’ medical conditions. The Department of Justice declined to intervene in Zafirov’s case, which left her attorneys to pursue the matter independently, as allowed under the FCA. However, the court ultimately dismissed the case based on constitutional grounds, arguing that Zafirov, as a relator, was exercising executive powers without proper appointment under the Appointments Clause of Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

The Appointments Clause requires that officers of the United States, particularly those wielding significant authority under federal law, must be appointed by the President, courts, or department heads. Mizelle’s ruling argues that whistleblowers prosecuting FCA cases exercise such authority by determining litigation strategies and binding the government to legal consequences, all without executive oversight. This lack of accountability to the President, Mizelle determined, violates the Constitution’s separation of powers and undermines executive branch control over the enforcement of federal laws.

This decision has sparked immediate reaction from legal experts and advocates for whistleblowers. Supporters of the FCA, including the Anti-Fraud Coalition, argue that the judge’s ruling breaks with years of precedent, noting that numerous appellate courts have upheld the constitutionality of the FCA’s whistleblower provisions. They point to the robust history of qui tam actions dating back to English law and early American statutes, which allowed private citizens to sue on behalf of the government. Mizelle, however, dismissed these historical arguments, stating that "the Constitution prevails over practice" and that historical precedent cannot justify violations of the Appointments Clause.

The implications of this ruling are significant, especially if other courts adopt Mizelle’s reasoning. Since its major amendments in 1986, the FCA has relied heavily on private whistleblowers to expose fraud, with many cases being filed without the Justice Department's direct involvement. Under the current structure, even if the government declines to intervene in a case, whistleblowers can continue pursuing litigation and potentially secure a share of any financial recovery. This framework has led to an explosion of FCA lawsuits, providing an essential check against fraud in government programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Mizelle’s decision also drew attention to the explosion of whistleblower lawsuits under the FCA, citing concerns that unaccountable private individuals could bring years-long litigation, even when the government itself opts not to intervene or pursue a case. Defense counsel representing the healthcare defendants in Zafirov’s case applauded the ruling, suggesting that it properly recognized constitutional limits and corrected what they view as the overreach of private individuals acting as quasi-government officials.

On the other hand, advocates for the FCA caution that Mizelle’s ruling undermines one of the most effective tools for detecting and prosecuting fraud. Without the incentive and authority granted to whistleblowers, many cases of fraud might never come to light, as the government lacks the resources to investigate every potential violation of federal law on its own. The ruling raises concerns about the future viability of qui tam provisions and their role in FCA enforcement if other courts follow Mizelle’s lead in finding these provisions unconstitutional.

The ruling also echoes concerns raised by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a 2023 dissent that questioned the constitutionality of qui tam actions. Thomas argued that allowing private relators to represent the interests of the United States in court, without being accountable to the executive branch, creates a “constitutional twilight zone” in conflict with Article II. Thomas’s dissent, along with concurring opinions from Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, suggested that the Court may eventually need to review the constitutionality of the FCA’s qui tam provisions.

As this case continues to make its way through the legal system, it may force Congress and the courts to revisit the FCA’s reliance on private whistleblowers. While the government’s recovery of billions of dollars annually through FCA lawsuits is a testament to the statute’s success, Mizelle’s decision raises questions about whether this enforcement mechanism can continue in its current form. If the ruling is upheld, it could potentially limit the number of FCA lawsuits filed by whistleblowers and reduce the government’s ability to recover funds lost to fraud.

The content on this site, including articles, posts, images, and logos, is protected by copyright and intellectual property laws and is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It should not be considered legal advice. Laws and regulations may vary by jurisdiction and are subject to change. For legal advice, consult with a qualified attorney or legal professional